- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or, since you think creationism is real, please provide in detail the means by which silicates (dust of the ground) was transmuted into all of the molecules required for living things, and then how the specific bio-organic molecules found in humans were transformed into an adult, fully formed human male.
Since you expect this from others, it is only fair to expect the same from you.
I'm sure this will be met with the usual 'but I take it on faith' cop-out - the pseudointellectual coward's cop-out...
Why would someone admitting ignorance of the entire subject "brainstorm" anything about it in the first place, and more, why would you ignore my expansive refutation of your "brainstorming"?
Cute strawman - was that the result of your "brainstorming", too?
Strawman on top of strawmen.
Why would a mutation need to be affected?
You really do have no clue about any of this, do you?
Did I not just explain that a single mutation can produce a multitude of effects, so 'a million' are not needed?
This is an internet discussion forum.
YOU made the foolish mistake of presenting yourself as being some sort of 'above the fray' genius who has 'studied' anatomy and sees design (without any actual evidence), whose mere opinion = fact. And when your opinions get demolished with actual facts, you pull this juvenile standard creationist cop-out nonsense.
You claim that 'the gut' to the 'aorta' generates vocalization impulses that get to the larynx via the RLN. I demonstrate that this is nonsense. Your come back with 'science doesn't know everything.' I explain that mutations can produce cascades of effects, and give an example, showing that 'millions' of specific changes are not actually required, and you come back with a demand that provide details on millions of changes. I say sure - after you provide evidence for your goofy aorta=vocalizations (no brain activity needed), and you sleaze out of it - 'gee, golly, it was just a guess.'
More beta by the day,
I have another theory (the layman's definition). What if those "cell-to-cell" nerve signals generated by the heart spike during a sudden shocking event and pass to the left RLN via the aortic arch then to the larynx? Remember I'm just brainstorming here as my intuition tells me the design has purpose, just as my intuition told me that the eye had to be dissected for the 'blind spot' to be realized.
That not a theory under any definition, thats a wild specualtion with no basis in reality.
One of the biggest signs, in my opinion, that a structure is either vestigial or doesn't need to adhere to strict structural guidelines for its function is variation. A lot of the papers I find that mention the left RLN mention how variations in it make heart surgery more difficult for some patients than others.Here's the point. The entire body has purposeful design, therefore the position of the left RLN is right where it's supposed to be regardless of the opinions of evolutionists.
-_- you do know that it is trivial to determine where nerves innervate, right? Furthermore, that its position is a consequence of embryonic development doesn't suddenly make it the most efficient and effective position for the nerve to be in. It just explains why it ends up that way. You are acting as if the designer you believe in didn't design the process of embryonic development at all.If it's position under the aortic arch was necessary during early growth and it was pulled down subsequently to it's final position then it is entirely appropriate to be where it is. As has been noted by others it cannot somehow disconnect and then reconnect later to suit the evolutionists. That said I believe it has a function that requires it to be right where it is. We just don't know what that function is exactly. What is clear is that it makes connections along it's length to various organs. What is needed of course is for the evolutionists to disconnect it and reconnect it to their liking and then observe the results.
The airfoil shape providing lift is the same. Also bird wings, and thus bird flight, are far more complex than any manmade wing could ever be.
I don't have to know how creation works.
No but the point was never addressed. Does science admit design? Yes! Do all scientists admit design? No! As for many features of the Universe and living forms much CAN BE interpreted as design or designed even if some people like Dawkin's excuse this away calling the appearance of design an illusion. But that science itself is by design what it is and relies so heavily on design to accomplish so much of what it discovers (and how it discovers it). No one should deny. So I just believe to advance in such a discussion (which is mostly opinion) one should at least admit what my last post describes.
Plus where waffling on implies a flipping and flopping between opposing perspectives and I am consistent then your accusation is unfounded. So can you ADMIT that the content of that post is correct? And if your paradigm does not allow you to be objective regarding it then what is wrong with it?
Here's the point. The entire body has purposeful design, therefore the position of the left RLN is right where it's supposed to be regardless of the opinions of evolutionists.
You apparently missed the point of the OP, which was not about design in science, but about purposeful design in nature (evolution).People should not be afraid or get angst from the use of words to describe what they see. Both Intelligence and design are essential elements of the science! It always starts with an idea or question by an outside intelligent force (the scientist or student of the method). What to use and how it will be tested is always the result of their intelligent ability to design.
The method (hopefully) intelligently applied, minus the narrative by which results are INTERPRETED (which are also the product of an intelligence), can and often does yield a number of different data from which a best guess is often contrived (but not always). When intelligence confirms a same conclusion (by other intelligences) it can be considered valid, and then it can be applied (by intelligent force of course) and people then design different applications.
When or IF things are not quite working out, the elements or conditions can be and sometimes are altered or effected by the one designing or performing the experiment (like in the Miller/Urey experiment) in order to get closer to the expected or hoped for results (only an intelligence has this ability).
The results are then interpreted (sometimes influenced by one's presuppositions or accepted ideas) and supported by other intelligences that hold to or hope for similar explanations. Thus all of what we accept as science today (aside from direct and confirmed observation) is proof of the necessity of intelligence and design.
My friend, get honest this once. All we can know depends on intelligence. Intelligence to some degree or another is the prerequisite of all knowing. All of what we experience as reality, all we can study, all conclusions and hypotheses, all depend and rely on intelligence. After all would (could) anyone deny that the Scientific method is the process taken into account and applied in designing and performing all experiments?
Isn’t strict attention to experimental design essential (including but not limited to controls)? After all, the quality and reliability of its outcome is directly affected by its construction, purpose, and in some cases even the precise timing, and so on.
What rational person would (could) deny that one of the important treatments in many experiments is often the controlled independent variable(s) and these are usually established thoughtfully (by the experimenter) before actually doing the experiment. These naturally affect the observational aspects of analyzing the data.
Is not the specific question(s) the experiment intends to answer clearly thought up prior to performing the experiment? Of course it they are! Is not the answer or observational interpretation made in light of the intended outcome (hopefully for or against, but usually for)? Of course these things are true.
a) the scientific method was intelligently designed
b) most scientific experiment is intelligently designed
c) most conclusions result from intelligences interpreting the data
To design something means: to plan, make decisions, or develop specific protocols about something being made, built, or created, i,e,, to create the plans, orders of operations, steps of assembly, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made. : to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose. : to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind and then bringing it to pass.
Therefore science depends on design construed by intelligent beings. Thus...science admits design even though some scientists may not.
OK. I don't have to know how evolution works.
Now we are on a level playing field, and the only thing we can now do is present our evidence.
Here is but a taste of mine:
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
Your turn.
And please don't reply with something stupid like 'are we related to mice?' or 'the mice are still mice' or some other statement of your ignorance of the subject coupled with a desire to rescue creationism - just present your positive, supporting evidence.
Like I did.
I'm happy with that wording (although the wings of the first aircraft owed little or nothing to bird wings) - I have no problem with evolutionary 'design'; it's a term in common use outside biology.Didn't we copy the design of bird wings so that airplanes can fly? We deem our wings designed, but bird wings aren't? I think it would be proper to say that we copied the functional design of bird wings.
LOL!
My gosh - a 135 IQ and this guy RELIES on question begging!
Still waiting:
" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."
Please provide evidence that 1. such a neural pathway exists and 2. that is actually functions in the manner you keep asserting.
That's shifting the burden of proof, and a Russell's Teapot fallacy. Yours is the novel claim, so the 'burden of proof' is yours.Provide evidence that it doesn't.
Here's the point. The entire body has purposeful design,
Provide evidence that it doesn't.
The topic is sounds, not Speech and Language.
If man and apes are so closely 'related' we should be able to tweak the genome of apes and produce humans from their species, and vice versa.
I have another theory (the layman's definition). What if those "cell-to-cell" nerve signals generated by the heart
That's shifting the burden of proof, and a Russell's Teapot fallacy. Yours is the novel claim, so the 'burden of proof' is yours.
Wow, great arguments...
Almost as great as misrepresenting a paper and then running off to avoid having to admit that you got caught.
Like happened when you posted this:
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.
You'd think an autodidact may have taught himself NOT to misrepresent published science when there are many people active on a forum that have a tendency to check creationist sources due to a history of creationists misrepresenting science.
Because I checked that source (which, uncharacteristically, you did not link to or quote), and found that your characterization of it was, shall we say, bovine feces:
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.
Imagine that - earlier specimens a more generalized ape, but later ones "missing links."
Right there in the abstract.
Did you even read THAT?
My gosh - your "interpretation" was just about 100% WRONG.
Was it intentional - was that why you did not provide a quote?
Did you just see that misrepresented on a YEC site and decided to run with it?
Was it by Design?
And why did you run away from that thread, despite indicating that you would be back?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?